MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases [LWN.net]

MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases

Posted May 28, 2003 4:57 UTC (Wed) by darthmdh (guest, #8032)
In reply to: MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases by coriordan
Parent article: MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases

> Is MySQL AB the greatest Free Software company or what?

I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but something that always stands out to me about them is the way that they cop a lot of flack from the DB community because they don't do things the old fashioned way, and they tackle these things very maturely. When users and authors of other databases claimed mysql was rubbish because it didn't support transactions, their claims were simply beaten down with the facts, and transaction support was integrated at a later date anyway, though for the right reasons - easing transition from existing SQL databases that used them.

No childish name-calling or rubbishing of other's work like other free SQL communities have done; just sticking with the job at hand, taking criticism for what its worth - a chance to further improve their products, and not making a huge fuss over pointless issues like a name.

Many software development teams can learn a lot from this.

to post comments

MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases

Posted May 30, 2003 22:19 UTC (Fri) by leandro (guest, #1460) [Link]

> they cop a lot of flack from the DB community because they don't do things the old fashioned way

So now the Newspeak for "fundamentally correct" and "reliable and efficient" is "old fashioned"? Guess you are friends with the New Economy guys, "we don't need no stinkin' revenue"...

> they tackle these things very maturely

I guess ignoring the issues instead of scaling back the hype is considered mature nowadays...

> users and authors of other databases claimed mysql was rubbish because it didn't support transactions, their claims were simply beaten down with the facts

I guess these facts are the facts that programmers are more likely to procedurally code integrity in the application than to realise they need to learn databases?

> transaction support was integrated at a later date anyway, though for the right reasons - easing transition from existing SQL databases that used them.

So transactions are not important on themselves? I hope I don't depend on any data stored by you...

> not making a huge fuss over pointless issues like a name.

I guess lying by saying you're a SQL DBMS while you're neither SQL nor DBMS is just a pointless issue...

And then people wonder at SCO, Microsoft, Enron, Monica Lewinsky and Florida...